Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Eur Urol. 2007 Jul;52(1):186-92. Epub 2006 Nov 13.

Predicting the outcome of prostatectomy using noninvasive bladder pressure and urine flow measurements.

Author information

  • 1Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To determine whether categorisation of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) using measurements of bladder pressure and urine flow obtained by a novel noninvasive medical device (the penile cuff test) improves prediction of outcome from endoscopic prostatectomy (TURP).

METHODS:

A consecutive cohort of 208 men undergoing TURP following standard assessment in our institution was recruited, and 179 (86%) completed the protocol. Each subject underwent a penile cuff test prior to surgery; outcome was assessed by change in IPSS at 4 mo. The proportion of men with good outcome (>50% reduction in IPSS) was compared according to categorisation by noninvasive bladder pressure and urine flow measurements.

RESULTS:

The cuff test was completed by 93% of men with 2% experiencing an adverse event. Men categorised as having BOO by the test (37% of total) had an 87% chance of a good outcome from TURP (p<0.01), whilst of those deemed not obstructed (19% of total) 56% experienced good outcome (p<0.01). For the remaining men not categorised in these two groups, 77% had good outcome, which was identical to the result of the cohort as a whole (77%, p=NS).

CONCLUSIONS:

Urodynamic categorisation using measurements obtained by the noninvasive penile cuff test improves prediction of outcome for men with LUTS undergoing TURP. This finding together with the ease and acceptability of the test suggest its suitability for office-based clinical use to assist men and their physicians in the selection for surgical treatment for relief of LUTS.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk